Metacrock wrote:you think Paul say we resurrect without bodies and get new bodies totally unrelated to the old he does not, he sys we put on immortality njot new body, the old bodfy is renovated.

Corinthians 15: 50 Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen,29 I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,
but we will all be changed—
52 in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,
and this mortal body must put on immortality.

the moral bo9dy will put on immortality so this moral bod the same one that died will become immortal.

54 Now when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will happen, “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

What you seem to be suggesting is that the flesh and blood remains, but you get some fancy new clothes to wear on it. That cannot be the case, because, as Paul wrote, and you even quote here; "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" He does not say flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God unless it is disguised somehow!

Metacrock wrote:you think Paul say we resurrect without bodies and get new bodies totally unrelated to the old he does not, he sys we put on immortality njot new body, the old bodfy is renovated.

Corinthians 15: 50 Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen,29 I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,
but we will all be changed—
52 in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,
and this mortal body must put on immortality.

the moral bo9dy will put on immortality so this moral bod the same one that died will become immortal.

54 Now when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will happen, “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

What you seem to be suggesting is that the flesh and blood remains, but you get some fancy new clothes to wear on it. That cannot be the case, because, as Paul wrote, and you even quote here; "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" He does not say flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God unless it is disguised somehow!

that's non sense. the body is renewed, it's clothes it;'s the body itself is better. you come out all clean and shiny(not literal).

Metacrock wrote:that's non sense. the body is renewed, it's clothes it;'s the body itself is better. you come out all clean and shiny(not literal).

Paul is clear; flesh and blood do not get to go to heaven. You are not puttng on clothes on top of the flesh and blood; that would still be flesh and blood and would not get to heaven. You take off the old clothes, the flesh and blood, and put on the new, the heavenly body.

Metacrock wrote:that's non sense. the body is renewed, it's clothes it;'s the body itself is better. you come out all clean and shiny(not literal).

Paul is clear; flesh and blood do not get to go to heaven. You are not puttng on clothes on top of the flesh and blood; that would still be flesh and blood and would not get to heaven. You take off the old clothes, the flesh and blood, and put on the new, the heavenly body.

wrong. you are taking out of context. We are talking about Jesus on earth before he ascended that is not people going to heaven.,b we don't knokw what form he took after the ascension.

as far as our own bodies go, I think he says resurrection body but he talks about different kinds of bodies. so it's a body even if i's spirit.

1 cor 15:35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Metacrock wrote:wrong. you are taking out of context. We are talking about Jesus on earth before he ascended that is not people going to heaven.,b we don't knokw what form he took after the ascension.

Paul describes Jesus as the first fruits of the harvest, implying he expected all Christians to do what Jesus did and conversely that Jesus had done what he envisaged for all Christians. For Paul, that was change into a heavenly body. There was no intermediate stage, and no suggestion he had ever even heard of the ascension.

as far as our own bodies go, I think he says resurrection body but he talks about different kinds of bodies. so it's a body even if i's spirit.

Not sure what your point is here. Different kinds of bodies is what I am arguing.

I mean....it just seems that this is a heresy discussed adnauseum (sp?) right up into the 5C ce.

Then council decrees and time and well there's your heresy, but here's what's niggling at me The Pixie (contest for best nn for ...TP? No....)

The Pixie, what's your stake in this? Is this scholarship? Cause Metacrock is much more authoritative than you and your arguments are weaker versions of discussions with clear resolutions and lines drawn in the sands. It's none of my business really but I can't understand then how you negotiate terms with Meta? Words referring to the same objects carry far ranging subjective meaning and without agreement in terms I just don't understand what you are pursuing here.

....Meracrock is argumentative, it's clear what his stake is.

Look I'm not trying to neglect your personal values . What I'm rally saying is how does your narrative of your self play into your pursuit of dialogue and perhaps some theoretical resolution?

sgttomas wrote:I mean....it just seems that this is a heresy discussed adnauseum (sp?) right up into the 5C ce.

Then council decrees and time and well there's your heresy, but here's what's niggling at me The Pixie (contest for best nn for ...TP? No....)

The Pixie, what's your stake in this? Is this scholarship? Cause Metacrock is much more authoritative than you and your arguments are weaker versions of discussions with clear resolutions and lines drawn in the sands. It's none of my business really but I can't understand then how you negotiate terms with Meta? Words referring to the same objects carry far ranging subjective meaning and without agreement in terms I just don't understand what you are pursuing here.

....Meracrock is argumentative, it's clear what his stake is.

Look I'm not trying to neglect your personal values . What I'm rally saying is how does your narrative of your self play into your pursuit of dialogue and perhaps some theoretical resolution?

Peace,
-sgttomas

"Pix" ... or maybe "Px"

The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Edward T. Babinski posted on Metacrock's blog, on a post unrelated to this, but he cited a book by Raymond Brown that is significant, in particular with regards to this exchange on page 1:

The Pixie: No, Peter does not show that. Peter got revised at some point, and we have no way of knowing what was in the original. It might have had the guards, but it might not

Metacrock: NO! that is emphatically BS. Ray Brown made his Reputation by proving the independent and early nature of the reading. I know that for fact I've read in a couple of sources and he also goes into it in Death of the messiah,.

However, Raymond Brown in the conclusion to "Canonical Gospel Purity" makes clear that he he believes Peter is a "rewritten" gospel, composed in the mid-second century:

Sometime in the middle of the second century, a Christian author composed a new story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. He did this by using as his primary sources the NT Gospels and other pieces of tradition with which he was acquainted. In the rewritten gospel there are many details that differ from the antecedent works, changes that were made in order to make the story more fitting for the new setting in weghich the author wrote. ...
...GP is best understood as a "rewritten gospel," and that criticism from and competition with those outside the Christian movement played a formative role in the reworking of earlier gospel accounts. ...
Chapter Four reviewed the account of the guard in GP. The writer retold the Matthean story and has altered in in seven was in an effort to assure readers that the tomb of Jesus was secure. ...
... While none of the NT gospels describes the resurrection - the actual emergence of Jesus from the tomb - the noncanonical author adds this scene in an attempt to prove a better case for the reality of the event. ...

So what Brown argues for is an early Gospel of Peter, which was essentially re-written in the second century. What we have today is the re-written text, a text that was heavily influenced by the other gospels. This re-written text has, for example, adopted the guard on the tomb, an embellishment invented in the Gospel of Matthew to counter claims the body had been stolen, and further enhanced it to make the Christian position more secure.

Metacrock, your argument appears to be predicated (to some degree) on the guard, the empty tomb and resurrection accounts being early, and the evidence for that is their appearance in the Gospel of Peter. If Brown is right, then your support disappears. What we have is an early Peter, which might have included an empty tomb, but may not, and a later Peter which was written too late to help your case.

I appreciate that Koester and Crossan think the empty tomb was early, but they also think the empty tomb was made up. Further, they appear to be in a minority having the empty tomb pre-Mark.